A recent federal court decision has determined that the government's unexpected cancellation of previously authorized humanities grants was illegal. This ruling provides a significant boost to a legal challenge initiated by various humanities organizations, including Oregon Humanities and the Federation of State Humanities Councils. The court found that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) acted outside its authority when it abruptly halted funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), affecting countless cultural institutions nationwide. This judgment underscores the constitutional principle that legislative bodies, not executive departments, hold the power over public funds, offering a crucial victory for the arts and humanities sectors.

In April, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) unilaterally ended grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) that had already been approved by congressional appropriation. This sudden cessation of funds impacted a wide array of organizations, including state humanities councils, museums, historical sites, archives, libraries, educational programs, and media outlets across the United States. The move sparked immediate backlash from the affected communities, leading to legal action.

Oregon Humanities and the Federation of State Humanities Councils responded swiftly by filing a lawsuit against the NEH and DOGE in May. Their legal complaint asserted that these abrupt funding cuts represented an \"attempted destruction\" of the long-standing federal-state partnership in supporting humanities, a partnership that has been consistently upheld and strengthened by Congress for decades.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon's ruling underscored the unconstitutionality of the government's actions. He explicitly stated that the plaintiffs were \"likely to succeed on their claim that the withholding of the funds at issue in this case is unconstitutional.\" Judge Simon further elaborated on the constitutional framework, emphasizing that \"The United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President.\" This reaffirms the legislative branch's sole authority over financial appropriations.

Following the judge's decision, Phoebe Stein, President of the Federation of State Humanities Councils, expressed cautious optimism. While she lauded the ruling as \"excellent,\" she also highlighted the continued challenges faced by humanities councils, many of which have already been forced to lay off staff and cancel crucial programs due to the absence of their congressionally allocated funds. Similarly, Adam Davis, Executive Director of Oregon Humanities, viewed the ruling as \"motivating,\" describing it as a vital step in the ongoing effort to strengthen communities and foster national unity through the humanities.

This judgment follows a similar finding in July by a New York federal court, which also concluded that the government acted unlawfully in canceling previously awarded humanities grants. That court had ordered the reinstatement of those grants pending the outcome of a full trial, further building the legal precedent against such executive actions. The National Endowment for the Humanities has yet to provide an official statement regarding the latest ruling.

The judiciary's decisive intervention reaffirms the critical role of congressional oversight in financial matters and provides a robust defense against executive overreach in funding for cultural and educational initiatives. This decision not only validates the claims of humanities organizations but also sets a significant precedent for the protection of congressionally mandated funding from arbitrary executive interference, emphasizing the enduring value of the humanities to national life.